Religion vs. Science

I agree with all you and that you all make good points .

I believe in radical logic; that I can't prove the existence of or absence of a God or higher being. As a species, we have no knowledge other than relative to what we perceive. While I am tolerant to all religious beliefs, I do not see the need to believe in a God. If It is truly a a being who is infinitely kind and forgiving, why would it care about what human's believe in; it would seem a rather vain being to do so. At the end of the day, we don't know whether our world is a reality, and the best evidence I've heard to prove so is that "it's obvious", but it makes sense to me to o along with the high probabilities. Science can accurately predict the outcomes for most everyday situations with minimal error, so why not go along with it? What has religion ever explained correctly? With the cases of science contradicting itself,
It doesn't. There are different theories which may not be generally excepted as science anyway. Evolution is environment specific and highly based on chance; it's easily possible that a mutation didn't occur in one area the same way as in another; thus different species of animal exist today. The bible also doesn't teach the truth, rather expresses the writer's opinion. Ps. Sorry for any typo's or cases of poor grammar; it's a rubbish excuse, but I am typing from an iPod and my big thumbs make it easy to hit the wrong letters.

Atheists argue that they follow logic and "what is", but this believe, this sureness, that there is NO God is the least logical of all. How does it make any sense at all to have an option that provides salvation if correct or either nothing or eternal suffering if incorrect, but then choose the option that assures nothing at all if correct but eternal damnation if incorrect. It just baffles me. Agnosticism is understandable but the sure statement that there is no God (or higher power) is ridiculous and contradictory to the "logic" it is based off of.

"Okay then..so your well read in science right? How about the philosophy of Science? Ever read into Popper,Hume or Kuhn??? All are scientists and philosophers of Science and all have provided theories that are infamous to all scientists to date (apart from your wonderful self obviously)...Science can carry on searching for evidence all that it likes, but nothing can ever be proven true or "fact"...ever.
Science can only prove if a theory is false or whether it can be falsified. You cannot see into the future to find out if results to an experiment will be the same tomorrow, next week or 10 million years from now. Therefore, the "fact" as you call it is not true, just not proven wrong yet. e.g, all objects denser than oxygen fall to the ground today, will they tomorrow? who knows. At this point I will remind you that Newton's theory was thought fact, until Einstein replaced this theory after proving him wrong. All scrince is, is a bunch of stuff we have proven incorrect. "

@BooBah - Science does not claim fact, only religion does that, faith is blind BECAUSE it is unchanging. Scientists who get things wrong are not looked on with disdain but with greatitude for having figured out what the answer ISN'T (such as Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler)and bringing others closer to what the answer MIGHT BE. Scientists don't believe that their experiments will work just the same tomorrow, or that all theories are right, they believe instead that nothing is set in stone, that it could all change in an instant. Only people like yourself believe anything to be unchanging, you believe that the words of an ancient book are eternally right and you dare to call any one else blind?

i dont no what i believe in but i think more on the science half than the religion. the two things are very similar but very different in other ways. science asks how but religion asks why eg why did god make evil and how does gravity work.it is never why does gravity work because we already no that it happens but we dont no that god created evil so we ask why he did it.
the bible is yet another thing that has either been made up or is true. it is known that the bible was written hundreds of years after jesus so how does some one know that jesus had so many loafs of bread and so many fish to feed so many people. it is like Chinese whispers. it will get exagerated as it get down like i could say to some one jesus fed 20 people wit 5 fish and 10 loafs of bread. then they could make it sound more exciting and say jesus fed 50 people with 7 loafs of bread and 4 fish and so on until it gets to the extreme.

I wrote a post and then read some more that I thought were very interesting and worth responding to. Again I reiterate that science makes no claims on absolute truth where as religion does make that claim. Science in its very nature admits its flaws by its dynamism and the fact that scientific theory is changeable. I believe that the majority of scientists have open minds, in that if you prove that a god exists to them they would then believe. I know I would.

A lot of the arguments made in the comments for creationism for example neglect the concept of time and don't take into account the very premise of evolutionary theory.... which is that "over time." The earth has existed for millions of years, religious theory for thousands, modern scientific theory for maybe a few hundred. How can Science of the last few hundred years prove millions of years worth of occurrences instantaneously and why would we expect it to do so irrefutably in a few hundred years and then discount its ability to do so over time when it has shown so much in such a short period of time. Again most arguments against science are asking for irrefutable proof and absolute truth. Where as religion and gods existence is apparently an unquestionable absolute truth. Do you then not see the difference required in the burden of proof?

Science has shown and proven that many religious beliefs which were in fact taken as absolutes truths false over time. As believers then I ask do you then require science to prove that God does not exist until you raise the question that the possibility of his existence is not there? So the burden of proof then is 100% on science to explain the possibility of his non existence and not at all on religion to provide an argument for God's existence, when in fact it is religion which claims his existence as absolute.

Where did the earth come from? Dust... particles... big bang? We don't know and can't prove it and have not been able to in the last few hundred years. The discoveries(not discounting one post which seemed to see scientific discovery as the invention of playstation or the television) over the last few hundred years and the advances of science lead me to rationally believe that there is a scientific explanation for a lot of things that we previously did not understand. And I for one would place my "faith" in that and not on a declaration of absolute truth, like the existence of god. Maybe the real argument goes back to what came first the chicken or the egg ie: did god create man or did man create god. We know for a fact that any gods existence was first recorded by man and that most of the old religions, pre-christian, were in fact created to explain things as simple as weather patterns, the sun, earthquakes, floods, droughts, fire, water, etc..... Which we now know irrefutably where they came from.

This leads me to believe that in fact man did create god and that religion's only real dynamic feature is to increasingly expand science's burden of proof further away from its original espoused beliefs.

i am a roman catholic, i would mainly like to address the issue of 'if there is a god why does'nt he stop illnesses, tsunamis, wars, etc.
if there was no evil in the world, would'nt it be easy 2 believe in god,i believe that god has put good and evil infront of us 2 choose our own path. we have free will.when the holyest of people lose family members, they may question god.but did anyone ever think that god is challenging us in this life. The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil.maybe he challenges his most faithful the hardest.

let me give u an example,lets say there is a man who goes to mass every week, lives a holy life.he lives in a perfect world where no violence, wars, disease etc.some may say he is faithful in god,who wudnt be, it a perfect word, no evil

now lets say the mans family dies, and wars start, etc.There is evil in the world.maybe this is god showing us good and evil, this may be where we choose 2 show or dont show faith.there would be no challenge to life if life was all good and no evil. so to answer the questin, maybe god is challenging us,and giving us free will 2 react...
now ther is obviously no evidence to suggest this is right or wrong,but it is just away of looking at the violence in the world................please read link http://www.zootle.net/afda/religion-vs-science.shtml ....it shows that science aint all that correct. very interesting.by the way i believe in religion and science to be real.its not one or the other

I think Science and Religion are two different codes that try to give what we want: explanations.

It's like PS3 and Wii, both give what we want (that is entertainment, passing time, and socialization in the long-run) but 1. they have different games that have completely different experiences (major ones, NOT movie adaptation stuff) and 2. they are NEVER compatible to each other. Many people would argue for PS3 because of its better graphics, great games, and superior system overall (Science's rationality, reasoning and infallibility would go here) but people enjoy Wii as well because of its family-friendly, easily compatible (Read Wii Game Store), and aimed-at-general-audience nature (Religion's simple rules, flexibility {I think..}, and non-ethnic restrictions {I think..} would go here).. However, overall, PS3 wins general audience (logical and/or knowledgeable people), because this generation are striving more more technologically advanced stuff (Placing necessity in technology and, generally, logic)... It's not bad to act/think that way, but one should know why people still insist on/enjoy Wii (Evidence of religion throughout the world)...

Both atheists and devouts(or extremists) are butting their heads together on LOGICAL ground for the existence of God (with atheists putting devouts to the ground right now). Well, people, religion and science are two different concepts that can NEVER be conjoined for one reason or another. Since, it is impossible to make two concepts equal, it is inevitably losing game that religious people picked on.

However, we should know that there are sometimes grey areas when we are trying to explain things. Maybe this paper about religion and science being similar to each other will bring new light on things or maybe it will become another battleground for atheists and devouts. I don't know about you, but I REALLY don' want to see latter case becomes true.

Anyone who wants to comment/refute/support my opinion, PLEASE do but logically.

I'm also a 16 year old student, except I'm studying for my A level Philosophy and Ethics, my coursework peice is on religion and science. The only problem I really feel i have with it is the title, it's like i'm forced to choose which one I think is right, when I think in some different aspects neither really have the right answer on the whole.
Religion created the basis for more laws and a sense of social morality that fit in with those times. Science came along and tried to provide an alternative explaination for things for those that didn't accept the idea of a God. Either way both tries to make the shoe fit for people to apply for everyday life.
Frankly I think both are highly flawed at the best and worst of times, i totally agree when people say both are some form of sciptual teachings in their own right, except the one that's been around for longer has lots of other interpretations that branch out in comparison to the late rise of modern science in the 16th century. I try and keep open minded about most things, because i think right now the humaan race is too closed minded to be able to grasp just what this world is probably capable of.
Humans need to feel like part of a group, lots of sociological and psychological studies have shown this, so it's only natural that something like the bible or (dare I mix the two?) something like Tarot cards are so vague, I'm a frequent user of the latter for fun but it's so that people can apply all this to their everday lives, because so much of it's up for debate. Take everything with a pinch of salt and try not to get too over your head really.

I throw into the mix some of my favourite quotes and where they're from for you to ponder on.

Dogma: "You have a problem with Catholicism?"
"I have a problem with any religion who treats their faith as a burden. You mourn your religion when you should celebrate it."
(No offence meant here at all, but to me (correct me if I'm wrong here) Catholism and a lot of fundamentalism comes across as a lot of negativity, like: you can't do this this or this
why not?
because it's a sin
-____-)

From diskworld by Terry Pratchett
Death: people simply don't see what they don't want to see.

And the only thing I view as totally true in this world:
A quote from dear old Alanis Morisette - One Hand in my Pocket
"And what it all boils down to
Is that no one's really got it figured out just yet"

I leave you on this thought, it's a totally ambigous statement, but; if God is a transcendant being...then doesn't that also mean that we've most likely judged (in our own imperfection), and interpreted a lot of things about him totally wrongly? What if everything we thought we knew about the God of classical theism is down to poor interpretation?
How do you think we'd all cope if he appeared and finally asked us:
"What the hell are you guys doing, seriously?"
O__< scary thought...

I am a Darwinian evolutionist but with a really different twist, I re-interpret the writings contained within what is called the Bible.

Here's a sample of the kind of studies I do, which strangely, is being rejected by the religious right but evolution-science is more tolerant of:

(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy’, rosy, the flush of red blood

"man became a living 'soul’ " (Genesis 2:7):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = animal principle/breathing creature

- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth-dust/ground-primordial soup)

Adam/man was not initially a human being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (which must have been a chimpanzee; somewhere along the line human beings caught the chimp as shown by recent human genome DNA mapping).

Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the ‘human’ species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (primate/mammal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in primates? Could it be because we have something primates don’t have?

animal = soul
human being = soul + spirit

soul = mortal (of earth)
spirit = immortal (otherworldly, aura, transcendent, supernatural = God's image)

Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had made.' (Gen. 2:8)

It was the gaining of this other element that enabled one primate to change from animal to human,and unless he had gained this other element, he could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.

If Mr. Darwin merely studied God's creation (nature) and told us what he saw there, wouldn't that make him God's advocate rather than God's enemy?

Religion and the Bible are 'not' the same things, if they were then the religious right wouldn'd disagree so vehemently with evolution.

The Wisdom of Truth
There is no doubt in my mind that intelligence in microorganisms (The God of Higher Being) creating an environment that could sustain life for all its creations of Living beings that live now and the ones that lived in history.

The interpretation of its meaning that began with spiritual beliefs in all religions is the children’s story version in a general overview of how life was created for our species to understand it. It is also the voice of wisdom from experience that gives instructions on encouraging healthy Human behavior that serve to protect us from ourselves and all others that we share this planet. Our emotions and our self awareness of them are still in its infancy stage of learning that self discipline and cooperation with our environment is important for our survival.

This is centered in the subconscious mind
Our emotional being
“The Child”

Science in all fields of research is the adult’s story version in the complexity of details of how life was created. The information is enormous in data for human comprehension.

This is centered in the conscious mind

Our Self Awareness
“The Adult”

Religions since early human civilization have warned us that by not living by the behavior guidelines that we are taught to us as sin, immoral acts from our spiritual faith will have severe consequences.
These work as a destructive mechanism to the health of the planet.

Science is also telling the same story that what we are doing in destructive behavior on a global scale to the planet will also produce severe consequences.

Our spiritual belief that tells us the rules for moral human behavior and scientific facts tells us why they should have been obeyed.

Religion and Science is the Truth of Creation of Life

Why can’t we all agree and save our planet’s future?